Validity. Ironworks and reality.

[Bahamut]

Thinking is some sort of action. Yes, given that "thinking" does not provide any solid action, it is a stored reflex inside of you that will spring out of any minute. For example, if heated debates pop up let's say about the war, and you cannot hold yourself back, "thinking" goes into action; thus, vocalizing out his/her support on the matter. So "thinking" can be the deepest way of support, since "thinking" is the one that is embedded in your mind, and your brain tells your body what it has to do every single day... just my two cents

[Animal]

Yorick,

I'm curious to know how the quote is necessary to the subject at hand?

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: This thread has crossed the line from general concept to personal with the specific comments about MagiK. Although I do see that MagiK began the rebuttals, then deleted and pm'd (which is how it should be dealt with if it's a personal disagreement). I will close it if the 'general concept' isn't the topic and personal references to members' posts or contemplation of supposed motives for posting and other potentially inflammatory comments persist. Come on people, if you have issues with someone over any thread or post, you know you should take it to the person in question via pm or email. If you think it's a violation of board rules, you take it to a mod or webmaster, but we don't come onto a thread and start rehashing a particular person's posts or their motivation for posting it, etc. That's a little too much like some back alley gossip session, especially when the member is still around the boards. In other words, it's not appropriate for public threads.

Brava, Cloudy!!! My points exactly. This thread has a quite sub-rosa air, and makes the third party suspect an agenda.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: Could inaction be described as support? Going along with the status quo? Not raising dissent about a course of action? If there is only 'for' or 'against', and no fence to sit on, then one can indeed support by doing nothing. A populous supports a dictator by simply going about their business. Isn't a person simply present at a rape a party to the crime? Deemed supporting it through inaction?

I definitely think the rape case and similar circumstances anyone who doesn't act is tacitly supporting the action. If you can take action (ie you're not being held at gunpoint while the rape is taking place or something) then you should.

But I agree with Kakero that it's not always possible to rebel against powerful others - for instance, is a man with a wife and children to support wrong for not agressively resisting against a dictator which he knows will end in his death and the suffering of his family? I can't condemn him for it.

Also there are degrees of showing your support. I don't participate in protests even if they are causes that I support, however I do lodge my opinion by voting.

As per the original question, I think definitely you can support things without posting about it. I know that I don't always feel inclined to post my thoughts on sensitive topics because of the atmosphere of debate here - it's worse elsewhere but you certainly wouldn't class it as a super friendly and inviting place to put controversial views, but often quite a lot of hostility and 'ganging up'. And I think you can support something by just thinking about it as well - especially if it what is happening. Someone could support the war because that's what their government is doing - they need not do anything because there's nothing they needs to do for their view to be realised. That's why I think it's kind of weird when people complain about celebrities only being against the war - why speak out if it's already happening (although of course they did - hey Kid Rock supported GWB!! Now that's someone I want in my corner ).

[Attalus]

Aelia, I like your style. For the first time I realize why my wife always refers to you as "the Goddess." [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

Attalus, thank you! [img]graemlins/kiss.gif[/img] . And tell Galadria hi [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Kakero: Not quite right! Inaction does not necessary mean support, there are times were the individual dislikes the thing happening around them, or got something else to say. but instead they do nothing for fear of reprisal, revenge and retribution from others. example, populous going about their business does not mean they support the dictator, it MAYBE because if he actually do something against the dictator liking ( ie try to overthrow the dictator ) . His life and the life of his loved one may be in jeopardy. Likewise, I've been visiting the war forum too, I got lots to say about it but choose not to say anything because I'm afraid I'll be attack by you people.

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: I definitely think the rape case and similar circumstances anyone who doesn't act is tacitly supporting the action. If you can take action (ie you're not being held at gunpoint while the rape is taking place or something) then you should. But I agree with Kakero that it's not always possible to rebel against powerful others - for instance, is a man with a wife and children to support wrong for not agressively resisting against a dictator which he knows will end in his death and the suffering of his family? I can't condemn him for it. Also there are degrees of showing your support. I don't participate in protests even if they are causes that I support, however I do lodge my opinion by voting. As per the original question, I think definitely you can support things without posting about it. I know that I don't always feel inclined to post my thoughts on sensitive topics because of the atmosphere of debate here - it's worse elsewhere but you certainly wouldn't class it as a super friendly and inviting place to put controversial views, but often quite a lot of hostility and 'ganging up'. And I think you can support something by just thinking about it as well - especially if it what is happening. Someone could support the war because that's what their government is doing - they need not do anything because there's nothing they needs to do for their view to be realised. That's why I think it's kind of weird when people complain about celebrities only being against the war - why speak out if it's already happening (although of course they did - hey Kid Rock supported GWB!! Now that's someone I want in my corner ).

"Not always possible to rebel"

Fear of reprisal does not make rebellion impossible.

A ruler of people, even a dictator always rules with the support. How does a dictator elicit that support? Influencing choices through fear, misinformation etc etc.

Making a choice based on fear is still a choice.

If you have a gun to your head, and are told you HAVE to do this or die, you choose. You choose to perform the action - and possibly live - or choose to ignore - and possibly die. (Bearing in mind, you could die or live regardless of the choice you make).

So, if a person living in a dictatorship keeps spending their dollars and contributing to the economy by working, paying taxes and ensuring the flow of goods etc. I would say they are still supporting the said dictatorship, by seemingly doing nothing.

I like Harkoliars point of thought alone being an action too. The brain being a physical part of you, and thinking requiring food and water like any other action. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Kakero]

Originally posted by Yorick: A ruler of people, even a dictator always rules with the support. How does a dictator elicit that support? Influencing choices through fear, misinformation etc etc. hehe, you have hit my most favourite subject. Accoding to Sun Zhi Military Dictionary ( Sun Zhi Bing Fa ). "If an Emperor wants the support of his people and gain the mandate of heavens, first he must gain their hearts! " So, a dictartor can do anything to gain the support of his people via torture or abuse and seems to elicit that support via those method. However, in the people's heart they hated the dictartor, does that mean the dictartor have the support of his people? no right? If you have a gun to your head, and are told you HAVE to do this or die, you choose. You choose to perform the action - and possibly live - or choose to ignore - and possibly die. (Bearing in mind, you could die or live regardless of the choice you make). So, if a person living in a dictatorship keeps spending their dollars and contributing to the economy by working, paying taxes and ensuring the flow of goods etc. I would say they are still supporting the said dictatorship, by seemingly doing nothing. Still not quite right! A gun is pointing at you head and telling you to do what the person wants you to do, do you have a choice? if you still want to live, no right? so you have to do what the person tells you to do. in other words, you are forced to do something. bear in mind, this is totally different than doing something voluntary. thus, this still does not count as supporting the so said person. Likewise, a person living in dictartorship but does nothing to overthrow the dictartorship does not necessary mean that the person is supporting the dictartorship. Yes, he spends his dollar and pay the taxes. but in his heart, does he really like the dictartor? does he really want to pay the taxes to support the dictartorship government? To the outside observer, His inaction means he seems to be supporting the dictartor, which in fact he is not! why? because in his heart he hated the dictartor. Yes, it's all in the person heart. what the outside observer think is not important.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Animal: I think you have to take the question into context. I don't wish to talk about MagiK, but that's his personality from what I can see, straight forward with no BS. Looking at it from that perspective, it was a simple question asked because it is a subject that he feels strongly about. I saw no offense intended by that post. As for the original question, can a person on ironworks support a cause without vocalising that support here, well sure they don't necessarily have to support it here, but if you support something and that topic comes up, why wouldn't you have a say in it? I took many a beat down in the war forum, and harbour no ill feelings against those who were weilding the bats. Some subjects invoke strong emotions with some so you have to expect strong reactions.

About need the choc for this one. Perhaps not posting is a way to avoid the potential for personal attacks. This is not to say that I believe any one was. I am merely putting up the idea that sometimes, and objection to an idea can seem to be an attack. I didn't post on the war forum at all, so, in context, does that mean that I did, or did not support the war?? I guess there is no way for any one here to say, one way or the other, and since that particular subject has been banned from gc, I won't say. Does that mean that I don't have an opinion, or that I just choose to keep it to myself?? I hope no-one mis-interprets this, as I have no intention of attacking any one, but I believe that I can have an opinion on an issue, w/out it being the most responded to post on IW.

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[Sigmar]

Personally what I want to know is who voted that they were a seamstress from Vienna aside from myself